CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1999

Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Uptown Productions

This memorandum opinion addresses the defendants' request to videotape the deposition of plaintiff Prince Rogers Nelson. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the defendants, publishers of an unofficial fan magazine "Uptown" and a website, intended to commercially exploit the footage rather than use it for legitimate litigation purposes. The Court acknowledged the plaintiffs' well-founded concerns regarding potential non-litigation commercial use by the defendants, while also recognizing a bona fide litigation purpose for the videotaping. Consequently, the Court granted permission for the videotaping but imposed strict protective conditions. These conditions mandate that the videotape be used solely for the litigation, requiring a jointly selected videographer, only one original tape, and a mutually agreeable non-party custodian to safeguard the recording from unauthorized viewing, auditing, or copying.

Videotaped DepositionProtective OrderCelebrity DepositionCommercial Use of DiscoveryRule 30(b)(2) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureCopyright InfringementTrademark InfringementIntellectual PropertyDeposition ConditionsLitigation Purposes Only
References
11
Case No. ADJ4513629
Regular
May 29, 2009

Richard Galindo vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC, GROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision finding applicant sustained industrial back injury. The defendant, Broadspire, challenges the finding that the applicant was not the initial physical aggressor, citing a videotape of the incident. Reconsideration was granted to allow the Board to review this videotape, which was admitted as evidence but was not readily available. The defendant is ordered to provide the videotape to the Board within fifteen days for review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMV TransportationBroadspireCrawford Companyinitial physical aggressorLabor Code section 3600(a)(7)industrial injuryback injurybus drivervideotape evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reimers v. American Axle Manufacturing

Claimant injured his neck at work in May 1999 and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. In November 2001, the employer and carrier sought to suspend benefits based on an independent medical examination by Dr. Anthony Leone, who concluded the claimant had no causally related disability preventing work. Dr. Leone's report was partly based on surveillance videotapes and his personal observations of claimant's physical activity. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled against pre-testimony disclosure of the videotapes but upheld the benefit suspension. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing *Matter of De Marco v Millbrook Equestrian Ctr.*, which allows the Board to withhold videotapes until after claimant's testimony in suspected fraud cases, and found sufficient independent evidence from Dr. Leone's report to justify the benefit suspension.

Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionDisclosure of EvidenceSurveillance VideotapesIndependent Medical ExaminationBenefit SuspensionFraud AllegationsCPLRJudicial ReviewAdministrative Appeals
References
2
Case No. MON 0212034
Regular
Mar 14, 2008

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition, deeming it an improper reconsideration of a non-final order. The WCAB construed the applicant's request as a petition for removal, which it denied, upholding the WCJ's discretion to prohibit videotaping of proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a party's right to videotape hearings is within the WCJ's sound discretion and not a guaranteed right.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalRequest for Judicial NoticeVideotape ProceedingsWCJ DiscretionFinal OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmVacating Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cranford v. Sexton

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 petition filed by a sanitation worker challenging his dismissal. The petitioner was found to have solicited and received a $20 bribe for bulk refuse pickup, an incident recorded via hidden equipment. Petitioner argued that an undercover investigator's credibility was compromised by the videotape and that dismissal was an excessive penalty. The court denied the petition, confirming the determination and dismissing the proceeding. It found the credibility issue beyond its purview and the videotape inconclusive, further noting that given prior disciplinary issues, the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate or an abuse of discretion.

BriberyPublic EmploymentDismissalDepartment of SanitationUndercover OperationArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCredibility AssessmentExcessive Penalty Claim
References
2
Case No. ADJ2776530
Regular
Aug 07, 2015

AMY SMITH vs. WALTER CLAUDIO SALON & SPA, INC., STATE FARM INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Amy Smith, challenging an order allowing the defendant to submit surveillance videotape evidence to an Agreed Medical Examiner. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order was not a final decision but an interlocutory ruling on evidence. The Appeals Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, concluded that the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy while exercising in a public gym and that the videotape was relevant to the claim.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2000

Claim of De Marco v. Millbrook Equestrian Center

A claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which denied his request to compel his employer and its workers’ compensation carrier to produce surveillance videotape evidence prior to his testimony. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1995 and had been receiving benefits. The carrier contested further benefits, alleging fraud, and sought to introduce a surveillance videotape. The Board ruled that while the carrier must disclose the existence of the video, it was not required to provide it before the claimant's cross-examination. The claimant argued that CPLR discovery rules mandated pre-testimony disclosure. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Board is not bound by the CPLR's discovery rules, as per Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 111, 118, and 142 (3), which grant the Board authority over disclosure and exempt it from common law or statutory rules of evidence.

Workers' CompensationDiscoverySurveillance VideotapeCPLR 3101(i)Workers' Compensation BoardEvidentiary RulesDisclosure ObligationFraud AllegationClaimant TestimonyAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldarola v. County of Westchester

Plaintiffs, three current and former corrections officers, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Westchester County and two officials in their official capacities, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. They claimed the County staged their arrests, filmed their transport, showed the footage at a press conference, and notified the media of their arraignment, comparing these actions to an unconstitutional 'perp walk'. Relying on *Lauro v. Charles*, plaintiffs argued these actions constituted unreasonable seizures designed to cause humiliation. The court distinguished the present case from *Lauro*, finding that the videotaping depicted legitimate arrests, not fictitious events, and thus was not an unconstitutional seizure. Furthermore, the court held that publicizing the videotape at a press conference and informing the media about the arraignment did not violate Fourth Amendment rights, as there is no constitutional right to privacy regarding reputational injury alone or to keep arrests secret. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and all claims were dismissed.

Fourth AmendmentSummary JudgmentPerp WalkUnreasonable SeizureDue ProcessFreedom of Speech and PressGovernmental IntrusionOfficial Capacity SuitCorrectional OfficersWestchester County
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01567
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2019

Ferdinand v. Salino

The plaintiffs, Susan and David Ferdinand, initiated an action against their neighbors, Gary and Karen Salino, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and private nuisance, also seeking a permanent injunction. The dispute arose after the Ferdinands began renovating their property, and the Salinos allegedly posted misleading signs, made disingenuous complaints, harassed invitees, and prevented utility access. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from various acts, including placing signs on the plaintiffs' property, harassment, blocking the driveway, insulting invitees, and videotaping. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court affirmed the injunction against blocking the driveway and harassing invitees but found parts of it overly broad, specifically denying the injunction against placing signs on the plaintiffs' property (due to lack of evidence), videotaping, and general actions to chill economic value.

DefamationPreliminary InjunctionPrivate NuisanceProperty DisputeHarassmentFirst Amendment RightsOverly Broad OrderAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureReal Property Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ4513629 (SAL 0120784)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

RICHARD GALINDO vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.; BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

This case concerns a bus driver who sustained a back injury after an altercation with a passenger. The employer denied the claim, asserting the employee was the initial physical aggressor, which would bar compensation. The Board reviewed videotape evidence and affirmed the WCJ's finding that the passenger's spitting and verbal threats constituted the initial physical aggression. Therefore, the employer failed to establish the exclusion under Labor Code section 3600(a)(7), and the injury is compensable.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONINDUSTRIAL INJURYBUS DRIVERCOMPENSABILITYINITIAL PHYSICAL AGGRESSORLABOR CODE SECTION 3600(a)(7)ALTERCATIONVIDEOTAPE EVIDENCETHREAT OF BODILY HARM
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 36 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational